How is internal democracy used in NGOs?

Many campaigning organisations are hierarchically organised and give their members limited opportunities for participation.   Their role is seen as providing funds and mobilising to support campaigns.

But if opportunities are available, do members take them?   I recently voted in the elections for the RSPCA board and was informed that only about 20 per cent of members do vote.   I don't have figures for the largest mass membership organisation, the National Trust, but my guess would be somewhat lower, perhaps 15 per cent.

 

In the case of the RSPCA, there were six candidates for three seats with full information about all of them. You have to vote for at least two to avoid 'plumping'.

The National Trust also uses first past the post, but has a recommended slate of candidates, usually retiring members of the Council, although one of them was not chosen this year.  Some members complain that this is undemocratic, but there is usually a very large number of candidates and reading through all the material would take a considerable amount of time.   If an organisation is well run, my inclination is to re-elect.

For the Consumers' Assocation, which is in many respects a commercial organisation, I was presented with five candidates for five seats and could either vote for them, abstain or vote against.   All elections were online.

The National Trust also had several motions for the annual meeting with recommendations on how to vote.   However, members were left to vote how they wished on trail hunting.  Both candidates and motions reflected the present campaign against the Trust's allegedly 'woke' policies, stirred up by The Spectator.  

Often attempts are made to use such democratic procedures as exist by factions with a particular agenda.

What are the limits of partisan identity?

Some interesting new research on partisan identity: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/voters-brexit-and-the-limits-of-party-loyalty/

Voters who identified strongly with the Conservatives before the referendum, for example, followed the party in becoming more Eurosceptic as the party tacked in that direction. And voters who joined the Conservative Party just after the referendum brought their other views in line with the positions of the party: they soon became more hostile to economic redistribution, for example.

Partisan identities still matter, even in countries, like the United Kingdom, marked by increased electoral volatility and the ongoing decline of traditional political loyalties.

All of this suggests that voters are still influenced by major policy debates. On high salience issues, party loyalty has real limits. Voters seem to care about at least some policies.

Kwarteng sets out his stall

Ambitious business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has set out his stall as a flag bearer for Thatcherite, free market Conservatism.

There are tensions in the party between the interventionist grand projects favoured by Boris Johnson as 'Heseltine with Brexit' and more traditional perspectives.   These have surfaced in tensions between the prime minister and the chancellor who favours fiscal restraint.

Kwarteng says that there is a need to reassert a strong belief in 'free markets, enterprise, entrepreneurship.'  In a barb he states, 'It's been very difficult to get that message out when we're spending huge amounts of money [on intervention].'

In a dig at his predecessor Greg Clarke he said that his discarded industrial strategy had been 'very, very broad.'   For all its flaws, it was an attempt to give a comprehensive strategic direction to policy.

Kwarteng had to admit that 'fiscal levers' involving tax cuts or extra investment allowances were in the hands of the Treasury: 'That's a conversation we can have with them.'   However, it would be quite a one sided conversation as the business department has always played second fiddle to the Treasury whatever the stance of its secretary of state.

Labour hold red wall seat

Labour have held Batley & Spen with a majority of 323.  This was despite George Galloway taking 22 per cent of the vote, about twice what I had anticipated, indicating that many Muslims (and others) had voted for him. 

It is possible that he took some anti-system votes off the right leaning Heavy Woolen District Independents who polled well at the general election.   His anti-woke rhetoric and social conservatism may have appealed to some of them.

Turnout was low at under 50 per cent suggesting a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Conservative voters. The Conservative share of the vote was down 1.7 per cent.

The result takes the pressure off Keir Starmer with talk of leadership challenges.

It also suggests that, despite Boris Johnson's denials, the Mike Hancock resignation and the way it was handled did have some impact on voters as the only opinion poll had put the Conservatives ahead.

Credit must go to Kim Leadbeater who was clearly an effective candidate well known in the locality.

Some prescient comments on the constituency by Jane Green (more favourable territory for Labour than Hartlepool): https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/23/batley-spen-byelection-labour

Professor Sir John Curtice has noted on Radio 4 that it is not necessarily a turning point for Labour.  Their share of the vote was down 7 per cent and the Brexit vote was lower than in Hartlepool.

The BBC Radio Leeds correspondent suggested on Radio 5 that an open letter from a group of Muslim women a few days before the election may have had some effect.  They named no names, but said they wanted action not words.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party finished ahead of eight candidates.   The Heritage Party candidate got just 33 votes.

Long Brexit in the Chiltern Hills

The Chesham & Amersham by-election result has produced considerable speculation about the crumbling of the 'blue wall' in southern England.   Here Paula Surridge reflects about the effects of 'long Brexit' that cross pressures electors in their voting choices: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/a-tale-of-two-by-elections/

Could democratic backsliding happen here?

Democratic backsliding is becoming a growing theme in contemporary debates and it is a risk in even the most stable democracies: https://constitution-unit.com/2021/06/10/the-anatomy-of-democratic-backsliding-could-it-happen-here/

Cabinet split over Australian trade deal

A battle royal is in progress in Cabinet on whether Britain should agree a tariff free trade deal with Australia.  Brexiteers think that if a trade deal cannot be concluded with Australia no deals will be possible for the new 'Global Britain'.

However, farmers - already reeling from the phasing out of support payments - are concerned that it could hit their markets and be a precedent for future deals, particularly those with the US and New Zealand.

On one side of the argument is international trade secretary Liz Truss, a popular figure among Conservative activists.   On the other side is Defra secretary of state George Eustice, backed up by Michael Gove.   Gove is concerned that rural areas in Wales and Scotland would be hard hit, further undermining the union.   Reports are suggesting that Boris Johnson may come down in favour of the deal.

Beef and sheep meat would be the main commodities affected, although Australia is also interested in exporting more cheese.   There is a 20 per cent tariff on beef at present which would be phased out over 15 years.